Navigate:

Roberts’ health care switch: Gasoline on the fire

John Roberts’ reported 'flip' is now being met with various levels of disdain.

“He’s an umpire that seemed worried that people from the stands would be hollering at him,” said Chapman University law professor John Eastman.

“If he changed his vote because he was persuaded by the argument in favor of the health care bill, then I think he’s wrong but that’s fine,” Eastman said. “If he changed his vote because people were critical of the court and he was afraid of those criticisms and nevertheless was of the view the bill was constitutional, then yeah, I think he should resign.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

Joshua D. Hawley, a University of Missouri law professor and former law clerk to Roberts, said the fact that the CBS report came out is more surprising than the idea that Roberts would change his mind.

“That, I have to say, is very, very surprising. I’ve been surprised to read the level of detail emerging from the court,” he said. “The information is quite specific and quite detailed. That makes me think it’s not a member of the permanent staff. I was more surprised by the amount of detail so soon after the opinion than I was about the reports of the chief’s thinking.”

Still, he said the court’s institutional role plays heavily into Roberts’ thinking.

“The chief justice and chief justices in general, I think, feel a special sort of burden of the court as an institution,” he said.

Roberts may have not wanted the court to look simply like the other two political branches of government, where the players line up without exception — especially on the health care law — on the sides of their political party. A ruling against the legislation would have been viewed by liberals as a Republican-led court acting like Republicans.

The ruling upholding the law leaves conservatives thinking that Roberts was simply too nervous to take such a bold move to strike a law, even if he believed that was the right thing to do. Still, some also believe that Roberts was swayed by outside lobbying, including Obama’s comments shortly after the oral arguments that there is no reason to strike the law.

“People are certainly entitled to change their minds, especially in a complex and difficult case,” said Ilya Somin, a George Mason University associate professor of law who wrote briefs against the health care law’s constitutionality. But he said it would be “extremely unfortunate” if Roberts changed his vote “for fear of criticism.”

“Then that is placing reputation above duty,” Somin said.

Some are shocked by how quickly the behind-the-scenes details leaked. The fact that the news came out just three days after the opinion “is a real black eye on the court,” said Duke University law school professor Neil Siegel, a former clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a Senate aide to Joe Biden during the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings.

Liberals are finding themselves coming to Roberts’s defense — some for the first time — praising his ability to put politics aside.

“I think this was an important decision for him — that he be seen as someone who is willing to give substantial deference to the political process,” said Alan B. Morrison, a George Washington University law professor who argued 20 cases before the Supreme Court.

"At some point, one would expect Roberts to express some leadership of the court - he is the Chief Justice, after all.

As it stands, Kennedy is in charge. Kennedy has the swing vote and garners the most attention. Kennedy plays with both sides of the court and with the other 8 justices. SCOTUS is definitely "The Kennedy Court", in any practical terms.

Roberts is just one of four radical conservatives, one of the pack, a piece of the Bush Bloc. Roberts is never seen by the public to truly embrace and consider all 8 of his colleagues - he only plays with 4 of them. The more that Roberts sides only with the 3 Cons, the more partisan he proves himself to be, and the more unfit he seems as Chief Justice."

Chief Justice Roberts, I honor you for the courage of your decision to validate ACA.

Dear Congress, it is time to collaborate toward improving the health care law. Is 3 1/2 years of squabbling not enough for you? Be assured that millions of voters are fed up with your self-serving turf battles and obstruction. America is decaying - please fix it!

America's path to progress will require voters to REPEAL the Pledge for Plutocracy and REPLACE the Agents of Obstruction.

America will fail in the competition for global progress because self-serving idealogues in local, state and national government refuse to collaborate with anyone outside of their tribe. We elect our representatives to negotiate and compromise in good faith while serving country and constituents with integrity. How dare they waste our time and prolong our economic malaise with self-serving turf battles.

Our members of Congress pay themselves a base salary of $174,000/year + health care + pension + expenses + staff and budget. "Leaders" take even more. Some don't even work full time on our behalf. Many spend their time writing self-promotional books - on our dime. Most spend countless hours with taxpayer money to court big-money campaign contributors and make themselves rich with exclusive deals and inside information. Meanwhile, the median American taxpayer income is about $33,000 and nearly half of Americans are in or near poverty and millions are out of work. Half of all bankruptcies are due to medical costs, despite many having insurance. We are destroying our middle class and turning ourselves into Mexico in the process!

In 2010, America turned over many Congressional districts to GOTP because they promised to focus on jobs and the economy - i.e. SERVE US. Instead, they wasted our time with pointless stage votes to obstruct healthcare (33 times!!) and insisted on parlor games to preserve revenue-gutting special-interest tax breaks, while mismanaging the debt ceiling negotiation. THEY DROPPED OUR NATION'S CREDIT RATING THROUGH INCOMPETENCE AND LOYALTY TO PARTY OVER COUNTRY! They have needlessly extended our economic misery and delayed a productive recovery.

Congress is irresponsible! While we elected some members of Congress who work on behalf of country and constituents, it is IMPERATIVE that we remove the rest. Here is a starting point: find out if your Congressional candidates have signed the Pledge of Allegiance to Gridlock Grover Norquist and vote for anyone else. Ignore the SuperPac TV ads and keep your focus on removing these corrupted politicians from every district. What do the billionaires who contribute $1+ million each expect in return?!? These people are beholden to corruption and greed - they do not serve us! I have a Gridlock Grover 'representative' in my district and many of you do, too. They have got to go.

There are Republicans and Democrats who have not signed the GOTP Oath of Obstruction - find out who they are and keep them. But the rest must go - starting with GOTP leaders McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Pence, DeMint, Romney.

SHAME ON THE CORRUPTED PARTY LOYALISTS WHO REFUSE TO COLLABORATE ON OUR NATION'S BEHALF.

REPEAL the GOTP Pledge for Plutocracy and REPLACE their Agents of Obstruction. Identify those who have Pledged their Allegiance to Gridlock Grover - over country and constituents - and vote for ANYONE else.

Never fear. Conservatives will be orally gratifying Roberts again and demonizing Kennedy as an 'activist justice legislating from the bench' when Kennedy comes down on the side of same sex marriage. Thus, you'll have to settle for Roberts being a bigot, but a bigot who believes almost everyone should have health care coverage.

“The chief justice and in chief justices in general, I think, feel a special sort of burden of the court as an institution,” he said.

Roberts may have not wanted the court to look simply like the other two political branches of government, where the players line up without exception — especially on the health care law — on the sides of their political party. A ruling against the legislation would have been viewed by liberals as a Republican-led court acting like Republicans.

I dont give a rats azz about how PC the SCOTUS is or feels, I care about our country becoming a Socialist Utopia because of this ill gotten legislation.

If the Phuquing Law was/is Unconstitutional then rule it as such. Dont rewrite it to suit some Mysterious Agenda in Anguish by calling it a tax.

Its like Olympia Snowe all over again but hiding in the upper echelons of the SCOTUS.

So how did Greenberg get the story for CBS? Was one of the justices so angry that they broke tradition and told one or more of the clerks to "leak" the story? This sounds like Scalia taking a shot at Roberts. I think there is more to this story.

Remember that time the Republicans nominated an even bigger flip-flopper named Mitt Romney? In 1994, adamantly for reaching out and supporting LGBTQ community, from 2004 to now, nothing. Created Romneycare in Massachusetts, now against it. For minimum wage, then against it. Pro-choice, now pro-life.

I don't understand how conservatives can be pro-Romney but anti-Roberts.

“What the left says of Bush v. Gore, I think is true of this decision.”

Huh? Bush v. Gore was decided on clearly partisan lines according to the constituencies who put the then-sitting justices on the court. This decision involves a "Republican" chief justice agreeing with the "Democrat" justices. It's a "bipartisan" decision, albeit by a body that isn't supposed to be partisan in the first place. Doesn't the American press ever get tired of being an unquestioning party to this sort of false-equivalency game?

Sad but not surprising how poorly informed people are about what health care reform does and doesn't do. That makes any polling on the subject pretty much moot since people's opinions are often based on wrong information (sort of like the opinions of most of the wingnuts on here). Take the quizz yourself or read the questions and answers below.

http://healthreform.kff...

% answering correctly

1. Will the health reform law require nearly all Americans to have health insurance starting in 2014 or else pay a fine? Yes, the law will do this. You answered this correctly.

Yes. Starting in 2014, most U.S. citizens and legal residents will be required to obtain health coverage, or pay a penalty. Some exemptions will be granted, for example, for those with religious objections or where insurance would cost more than 8% of their income.

64%

2. Will the health reform law allow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly.

No. No such panels exist. While early versions of the law did contain provisions that would allow Medicare to reimburse physicians for voluntary discussions with patients about end-of-life planning, these provisions were dropped from the final legislation.

45%

3. Will the health reform law cut benefits that were previously provided to all people on Medicare? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly.

No. The law reduces payments to the privately administered Medicare Advantage plans, but they will still be required to provide all benefits that are covered by traditional Medicare.

40%

4. Will the health reform law expand the existing Medicaid program to cover low-income, uninsured adults regardless of whether they have children? Yes, the law will do this. You answered this correctly.

Yes. Medicaid will be expanded to cover nearly all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level ($14,400 for an individual or $29,300 for a family of four in 2010).

62%

5. Will the health reform law provide financial help to low and moderate income Americans who don't get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage? Yes, the law will do this. You answered this correctly.

Yes. Individuals without access to affordable coverage who purchase coverage through the new insurance Exchanges and have incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for premium tax credits based on their income.

72%

6. Will the health reform law prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person's medical history or health condition? Yes, the law will do this. You answered this correctly.

Yes. Starting in 2014, all health insurers will be required to sell coverage to everyone who applies, regardless of their medical history or health status.

67%

7. Will the health reform law require all businesses, even the smallest ones, to provide health insurance for their employees? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly.

No. The law does not require employers to provide health benefits. However, it does impose penalties, in some cases, on larger employers (those with 50 or more workers) that do not provide insurance to their workers or that provide coverage that is unaffordable.

25%

8. Will the health reform law provide tax credits to small businesses that offer coverage to their employees? Yes, the law will do this. You answered this correctly.

Yes. Beginning in 2010, business with fewer than 25 full time equivalent employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 that pay at least half of the cost of health insurance for their employees are eligible for a tax credit.

65%

9. Will the health reform law create a new government run insurance plan to be offered along with private plans? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly.

No. The law does not create a new government-run health insurance plan. The existing Medicaid program will be expanded to cover more low-income people, government regulation of the health insurance industry will be increased, and tax credits will be provided to make private health insurance more affordable for people.

27%

10. Will the health reform law allow undocumented immigrants to receive financial help from the government to buy health insurance? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly.

No. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive financial help from the government to buy health insurance, nor are they eligible for Medicaid or to purchase insurance with their own money in the new Exchanges.

And the republicans thought he was bought and paid for. And he is appointed for life, how dare he use his own consequence to make a decision. Now Boehner, Cantor and the other lazy azz republicans are gong to have to try and do something on their own.